Patents make consumer friendliness impossible. Having standards in devices is important. Patents for stupid obvious ideas prevents these standards from happening. I really hope something gets done about this abuse of the patent system. I am pretty sure nothing with ever get done unfortunately.

Despite [Apple using patents on specific non-standard-based features], the fact that the Obama administration was willing to intervene in the Apple-Samsung battles in favor of the US company may smack of favoritism to some.

Huh…opinions about the shape of the earth seem yet again to differ.

But who has actually refuted the EU charges against Sammy's efforts being themselves anti-competitive, or stood up to say that the once-in-a-lifetime remand for the ITC to reconsider that anti-competitive injunction should be a general feature of ITC cases where FRAND pledges are NOT being violated?

The only non-anonymous reference I've seen was from some trade advocate that is probably on Samsung's payroll.

Despite that, the fact that the Obama administration was willing to intervene in the Apple-Samsung battles in favor of the US company may smack of favoritism to some.

Pretty much spot on. And with some amount of justification. If the Samsung phones had been currently produced, I could see Tit-for-tat banning of iPhones and other Apple products in Korea coming from something heavy handed like this.

There are big differences between the two dueling ITC cases—in particular, Samsung was attacking Apple with standard-essential patents, whereas Apple was using patents on specific non-standard-based features. Despite that, the fact that the Obama administration was willing to intervene in the Apple-Samsung battles in favor of the US company may smack of favoritism to some.

I guess some people aren't self-aware enough that they are being the "some" mentioned in the last sentence.

There are big differences between the two dueling ITC cases—in particular, Samsung was attacking Apple with standard-essential patents, whereas Apple was using patents on specific non-standard-based features. Despite that, the fact that the Obama administration was willing to intervene in the Apple-Samsung battles in favor of the US company may smack of favoritism to some.

I guess some people aren't self-aware enough that they are being the "some" mentioned in the last sentence.

But the other issue is that these patents are only a very small part of the phones, and not part of what makes consumers want to buy them, and hence banning the products entirely is absurd, because they are such a minor part of the value of the product that they are negligible in the grand scheme of things.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

Always somebody who can't be bothered reading the article and any related articles, then makes stupid statements.

Apples reprieve was about the administration not wanting exclusion orders based on standards essential patents. With SEPs, there are no work arounds because they are part of an adopted standard. If the SEP holder engages in patent hold-up then applies for an exclusion order, then they can basically ask whatever money they want for a competitor to be able to come to market. As part of submitting a patent into a standard, the patent holder agrees to license the patent on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, but Samsung has been deemed to not have done that (EU investigating Samsung for abuse of SEP leveraging).

Samsungs exclusion order is based on non SEP patents that can actually be worked around, and have been in newer products. Quite a difference.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

How about for the reason that Scamsung is a convicted criminal chaebol?

Spoiler: show

July 7, 2004: Jury advised of adverse interference when Samsung allowed emails to be automatically deleted even after it was told to retain relevant emails. After Samsung's appeal, Judge William Martini found "Samsung's actions go far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct."

October 17, 2005: The U.S. Department of Justice fined Samsung nearly $300M for memory price fixing within the U.S.

Feb. 7, 2007: U.S. government fined Samsung for $90M for memory chip price fixing for violations in 2006.

Jan.15, 2008: Samsung's offices in Korea were raided after evidence showed that a slush fund was used to bribe government officials and other business leaders.

July 16 2008, Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-He was found guilty in Seoul of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Despite prosecutor request of seven years in prison, sentence was reduced to three years followed by a pardon by the South Korean Government in 2009 to allow him to help with its successful bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. He is now a member of the International Olympic Committee and this 'pardoned criminal' returned as Samsung's Chairman in March 2010.

May 19, 2010: The EU Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that shared confidential information and fixed memory chip prices (along with eight other firms).

Nov. 1, 2011: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that fixed prices and reduced output for TFT-LCD screens between 2001 and 2006.

March 15, 2012: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for a mobile phone price fixing scheme and consumer fraud whereby consumers would by paying more than what the discounted prices advertised.

July 25, 2012: Magistrate Grewal informs the jury that they could take into account that "spoliation" of evidence occurred when Samsung destroyed evidence that could have been used in the Apple lawsuit; Samsung had a policy of automatically deleting emails that were two weeks old and should have suspended that policy between August 2010 (when Apple informed Samsung of patent infringement) and April 2011 (when Apple initiated the lawsuit).

August 24, 2012 a jury returned a verdict finding Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. But Samsung continues to fight the ruling, and continues in their copying behavior.

Dec 2012: EU issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against Samsung for abusing its Standard-Essential Patents in not providing FRAND rates. Samsung withdrew all SEP-based injunction requests against Apple in Europe days before the SO was issued, but to no avail.

April. 2013, Samsung is accused of and admits hiring people in several countries to falsify reports of HTC phones "constantly crashing" and posting fake benchmark reviews.

October 2013 Samsung in confirmed reports from independent and objective testing, found to be intentionally falsifying performance benchmarks of its flagship products: the Galaxy S4 and Note 3.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

Always somebody who can't be bothered reading the article and any related articles, then makes stupid statements.

Apples reprieve was about the administration not wanting exclusion orders based on standards essential patents. With SEPs, there are no work arounds because they are part of an adopted standard. If the SEP holder engages in patent hold-up then applies for an exclusion order, then they can basically ask whatever money they want for a competitor to be able to come to market. As part of submitting a patent into a standard, the patent holder agrees to license the patent on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, but Samsung has been deemed to not have done that (EU investigating Samsung for abuse of SEP leveraging).

Samsungs exclusion order is based on non SEP patents that can actually be worked around, and have been in newer products. Quite a difference.

Better reading would be the original ruling which called for a ban, in which it was found that Samsung had tried to license the patents at FRAND rates, but that Apple was abusing the process and refusing to license. They found Apple's behavior so egregious that they took the highly unusual step calling for a ban based on FRAND patents.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

One was based on standards essential patents that were supposed to be licensed on FRAND terms, and one wasn't? Surely you're aware of this fact.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

Except that Apple had/has no obligation to license its non-SEP patents. Scamsung, OTOH, is obliged under contract law to license its SEP-patents on FRAND terms. Surely you're aware of this legal aspect.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

One was based on standards essential patents that were supposed to be licensed on FRAND terms, and one wasn't? Surely you're aware of this fact.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

Except that Apple had/has no obligation to license its non-SEP patents. Scamsung, OTOH, is obliged under contract law to license its SEP-patents on FRAND terms. Surely you're aware of this legal aspect.

Read what he wrote. The ITC found that Samsung tried to license it's patents to Apple, it was Apple that was refusing to accept FRAND terms.

What's more, the veto didn't dispute that. It wasn't granted because Apple were innocent, but because it could harm consumers.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

One was based on standards essential patents that were supposed to be licensed on FRAND terms, and one wasn't? Surely you're aware of this fact.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

Except that Apple had/has no obligation to license its non-SEP patents. Scamsung, OTOH, is obliged under contract law to license its SEP-patents on FRAND terms. Surely you're aware of this legal aspect.

So it is okay to veto the ban on an Apple product because it is FRAND, even though Apple refused to play by the FRAND rules? Surely you are aware that reasoning is complete BS.I'm not saying they should have vetoed this ban, I'm saying the veto of the apple ban was BS and was done only because it was Apple.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

So you're not mentioning the idea that Samsung's position required Apple to cross-license non-SEP IP, so the terms offered were not FRANDly.

That's pretty much the basis for the distinction that the EUCC made, too: Apple was not obligated to take a license on discriminatory—as in, nobody else had to barter a crown-jewel UX patent—terms

Not according to the ITC.According the ITC Samsung negotiated in good faith and Apple was unreasonable. So I guess the question is, who should regulate international trade? I always assumed it should be the ITC.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

One was based on standards essential patents that were supposed to be licensed on FRAND terms, and one wasn't? Surely you're aware of this fact.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

Except that Apple had/has no obligation to license its non-SEP patents. Scamsung, OTOH, is obliged under contract law to license its SEP-patents on FRAND terms. Surely you're aware of this legal aspect.

So it is okay to veto the ban on an Apple product because it is FRAND, even though Apple refused to play by the FRAND rules? Surely you are aware that reasoning is complete BS.I'm not saying they should have vetoed this ban, I'm saying the veto of the apple ban was BS and was done only because it was Apple.

yes, that reasoning is BS…because it is Samsung who's been found to abuse FRAND rules, not Apple (at least in this case).

Dang, I thought these half-truths disappeared a couple of months ago when Android-can-never-be-wrong types had their water cooler shut down.

yes, that reasoning is BS…because it is Samsung who's been found to abuse FRAND rules, not Apple (at least in this case).

Dang, I thought these half-truths disappeared a couple of months ago when Android-can-never-be-wrong types had their water cooler shut down.

This is plainly not true. The ITC found that Samsung negotiated in good faith while Apple was abusing the rules, which is why the Apple products were banned. You seem to have the parties confused in your mind.

Just because you are a fanboy doesn't mean everyone else is. Almost all of my equipment is Apple, they just weren't correct in this instance.

So what's the reason that Apple got an exemption from the president but Samsung doesn't? Apart from the fact that one is an American company and the other isn't?

Well protectionism worked so well the last dozen times it was tried, hurray

One was based on standards essential patents that were supposed to be licensed on FRAND terms, and one wasn't? Surely you're aware of this fact.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

Except that Apple had/has no obligation to license its non-SEP patents. Scamsung, OTOH, is obliged under contract law to license its SEP-patents on FRAND terms. Surely you're aware of this legal aspect.

So it is okay to veto the ban on an Apple product because it is FRAND, even though Apple refused to play by the FRAND rules? Surely you are aware that reasoning is complete BS.I'm not saying they should have vetoed this ban, I'm saying the veto of the apple ban was BS and was done only because it was Apple.

yes, that reasoning is BS…because it is Samsung who's been found to abuse FRAND rules, not Apple (at least in this case).

Dang, I thought these half-truths disappeared a couple of months ago when Android-can-never-be-wrong types had their water cooler shut down.

You are incorrect. The ITC panel found that Apple was abusing the FRAND process, not Samsung. And the veto was issued not because the panel was incorrect - it didn't dispute the findings at all. It was issued on the grounds that a ban could harm consumers.

What's funny, is that this ban means nothing. Like bans prior, the timing is pathetic. By the time any trade group puts this to practice, several generations of new product will be the real monetary endeavors of their respective companies. As such, these lawsuits are just sad representatives of an industry that is vindictive, rather than progressive.

And I don't mean to support Samsung, nor any other tech company here. All are at fault.

What's funny, is that this ban means nothing. Like bans prior, the timing is pathetic. By the time any trade group puts this to practice, several generations of new product will be the real monetary endeavors of their respective companies. As such, these lawsuits are just sad representatives of an industry that is vindictive, rather than progressive.

And I don't mean to support Samsung, nor any other tech company here. All are at fault.

Yes and no. I agree that the timing of these bans is ridiculous and this ban won't have much, if any, effect. The problem is the precedent this sets.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

So you're not mentioning the idea that Samsung's position required Apple to cross-license non-SEP IP, so the terms offered were not FRANDly.

That's pretty much the basis for the distinction that the EUCC made, too: Apple was not obligated to take a license on discriminatory—as in, nobody else had to barter a crown-jewel UX patent—terms

Not according to the ITC.According the ITC Samsung negotiated in good faith and Apple was unreasonable. So I guess the question is, who should regulate international trade? I always assumed it should be the ITC.

You're all wrong.

Samsung's "reasonable" offer stipulated that Apple would be obligated to a cross-license of its non-standard patents in order to obtain license to Samsung's standard patents for a reasonable fee.

As non-standard patents have *no* obligation to be licensed and standards patents *do*, this was essentially Apple being held-up for access to their patents OR they wouldn't get the RAND rate.

Where the ITC believes Samsung's offer was reasonable they set a dangerous standard for allowing standards-patent holders to *demand* non-standard patent access as part of a FRAND deal, which *cannot* be allowed to become case law.

The Justice Department didn't have their head stuck in the sand like the ITC did over Samsung's reasonable deal with unreasonable terms, so the administration naturally struck Apple's exclusion order down.

There is no such shenanigans with Samsung's situation: there is a non-standard patent and Apple has *no* obligation to allow Samsung access to it. They must work-around it or be sanctioned.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

So you're not mentioning the idea that Samsung's position required Apple to cross-license non-SEP IP, so the terms offered were not FRANDly.

That's pretty much the basis for the distinction that the EUCC made, too: Apple was not obligated to take a license on discriminatory—as in, nobody else had to barter a crown-jewel UX patent—terms

Not according to the ITC.According the ITC Samsung negotiated in good faith and Apple was unreasonable. So I guess the question is, who should regulate international trade? I always assumed it should be the ITC.

You're all wrong.

Samsung's "reasonable" offer stipulated that Apple would be obligated to a cross-license of its non-standard patents in order to obtain license to Samsung's standard patents for a reasonable fee.

As non-standard patents have *no* obligation to be licensed and standards patents *do*, this was essentially Apple being held-up for access to their patents OR they wouldn't get the RAND rate.

Where the ITC believes Samsung's offer was reasonable they set a dangerous standard for allowing standards-patent holders to *demand* non-standard patent access as part of a FRAND deal, which *cannot* be allowed to become case law.

The Justice Department didn't have their head stuck in the sand like the ITC did over Samsung's reasonable deal with unreasonable terms, so they naturally struck Apple's exclusion order down.

There is no such shenanigans with Samsung's situation: there is a non-standard patent and Apple has *no* obligation to allow Samsung access to it. They must work-around it or be sanctioned.

Hence, reality.

So we should ignore the independent panel whose entire purpose is to fairly mediate these type of disputes because you said they were wrong?

Sorry, but if you are just going to say "Nah, I don't like that decision" every time the ITC says something you don't like there is no point of having an ITC. I guess they should just pick and choose which products should be sold or banned themselves, why go through the dog and pony show of the ITC if their decisions are just ignored?

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

So you're not mentioning the idea that Samsung's position required Apple to cross-license non-SEP IP, so the terms offered were not FRANDly.

That's pretty much the basis for the distinction that the EUCC made, too: Apple was not obligated to take a license on discriminatory—as in, nobody else had to barter a crown-jewel UX patent—terms

Not according to the ITC.According the ITC Samsung negotiated in good faith and Apple was unreasonable. So I guess the question is, who should regulate international trade? I always assumed it should be the ITC.

You're all wrong.

Samsung's "reasonable" offer stipulated that Apple would be obligated to a cross-license of its non-standard patents in order to obtain license to Samsung's standard patents for a reasonable fee.

As non-standard patents have *no* obligation to be licensed and standards patents *do*, this was essentially Apple being held-up for access to their patents OR they wouldn't get the RAND rate.

Where the ITC believes Samsung's offer was reasonable they set a dangerous standard for allowing standards-patent holders to *demand* non-standard patent access as part of a FRAND deal, which *cannot* be allowed to become case law.

The Justice Department didn't have their head stuck in the sand like the ITC did over Samsung's reasonable deal with unreasonable terms, so they naturally struck Apple's exclusion order down.

There is no such shenanigans with Samsung's situation: there is a non-standard patent and Apple has *no* obligation to allow Samsung access to it. They must work-around it or be prosecuted.

Hence, reality.

Another armchair lawyer who knows more than the judges who presided over the case and saw all the evidence.

I'll repeat it again for the hard of learning: the panel who presided over this case and saw all the evidence found that Samsung offered fair and reasonable terms for it's SEP patents and Apple refused to negotiate.

The veto did not dispute any of this, but rather posited that a ban would be bad for consumers.

The ITC found that Apple refused to license those patents, which is why they decide to ban the product. Surely you're aware of this fact.

Hence, reality.

Sorry, but if you are just going to say "Nah, I don't like that decision" every time the ITC says something you don't like there is no point of having an ITC.

You seem to think the ITC is the single arbiter of case law in the nation, but obviously they aren't or we wouldn't be here.

The Supreme Court, not the ITC, is the ultimate authority on American patent law, and everything under it must adhere to case law as best they can. Here, a higher-up branch of appeal (part of the natural structure of the intellectual property law system) decided the ITC was wrong.

You seem to think the ITC is the single arbiter of case law in the nation, but obviously they aren't or we wouldn't be here.

The Supreme Court, not the ITC, is the ultimate authority on American patent law, and everything under it must adhere to case law as best they can. Here, a higher-up branch of appeal (part of the natural structure of the intellectual property law system) decided the ITC was wrong.

Like I said, if you are just going to ignore the ITC whenever you don't like their ruling then don't go through their process at all. As others have pointed out, they didn't veto because they didn't agree, they vetoed because they thought it would "harm" the consumer.